MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 8th 2021 - 04:31 UTC

 

 

“Decolonization is a process guided by the aspirations and needs of the communities living in the territories”

Monday, February 24th 2020 - 07:47 UTC
Full article 45 comments

With 17 non-self-governing territories remaining worldwide, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres has said that decolonization is a process that has to be guided by the aspirations and needs of the communities living in the territories. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Roger Lorton

    “With 17 non-self-governing territories remaining worldwide, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres has said that decolonization is a process that has to be guided by the aspirations and needs of the communities living in the territories.”

    LIVING IN .................................. seems straightforward enough.

    Carpfish?

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Me dear, very monolingual Brummie Engrish Copper in Siam...

    Where do you sense “Straightforwardness” in the very carefuly chosen words of Secretary-General Guterres at the opening of the latest session of the UN Special Committee dealing with decolonisation..., a UN Committee which..., several times..., has defined and declared the “Islas Malvinas/Falklands Issue” as a “ SPECIAL CASE”...?

    If you do want to read some absolutely CLEAR & STRAIGHTFORWARD words from the UN..., try to read the following..., published exactly one year ago...:
    https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/02/1033532

    Catpiss.., copper?

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Brit Bob

    Think

    You forget that the C24 is the little committee. The big committee voted in 2008 -

    Motion supported by Spain and Argentina to restrict Self-Determination where there was a sovereignty dispute

    In regard to this, on 20 October 2008 the United Nations General Assembly rejected a motion supported by Spain and Argentina by 61 votes to 40 to place restrictions on the right to self-determination where there was a sovereignty dispute, determining that it was a fundamental right. (UN Fourth Committee Approved Text on Non-Self-Governing Territories, GA/SPD/406, 20 Oct 2008).

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    Chagos, Thunk? Different history, but the advisory opinion certainly advantages the Falklanders with its emphasis on self-determination.

    Love to see where the UN GA has declared the Falklands a 'Special Case', Thunk. Do you have a link?

    Catharsis?

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Brit Bob

    Roger Lorton

    ICJ and ‘Populations’ of Non-Self-Governing Territories

    In paragraph 147 of the 2019 Chagos ruling the ICJ stated – In the Court’s view, it follows that the legal regime of non-self-governing territories, as set out in Chapter XI of the Charter, was based on the progressive development of their institutions so to lead the populations concerned to exercise their right to self-determination. (Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 Feb 2019, para 147).

    The ruling indicates that self-determination applies to ‘populations’ of non-self-governing territories.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Zaczac121

    I’m surprised the Argies haven’t just sent people to the islands to colonise, I’m sure, if they thought it was rightfully theirs, they’d get pro-Argie people to settle the islands, but I guess Argentina doesn’t think of obvious (but illegal) solutions

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Roger Lorton...
    Is your self-confidence sooo low that you continuously feel the need to move the goal posts the Engrish way...?
    Can't you read Engrish no more..?
    I wrote...:
    ***” A UN Committee (dealing with decolonisation) which..., several times..., has defined and declared the “Islas Malvinas/Falklands Issue” as a “ SPECIAL CASE”...“***
    Lots of links to this UN Committee at several hundreds of sites on the net..., Coppper.
    Even at your own FawltyFalkland/MalvinasTimeline.bull..., I Think...

    BritBob...
    You say...:
    ***”The ruling indicates that self-determination applies to ‘populations’ of non-self-governing territories”***
    I say...:
    And the population of the Chagos Islands on the 25 February 2019 was ................?
    (Please fill the dotted line with the correct information..., thanks)

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    A committee? In fact, a Sub-Sub-Committee? They cannot declare or define anything Thunk. Not without higher authority.

    The C24 report to the Fourth Committee, who report to the General Assembly.

    ONLY the GA can declare and define a 'Special Case'. Clearly you have no link to where the GA has done so. Hardly surprising, as there has been no such declaration or definition.

    So - the Falklands are not a 'Special case'.

    Easy enough even for an ancient Malvinista to grasp, old un.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Think

    Why do you feel the need of explaining the perfectly obvious..., Copper...?
    We all know that the UNGA hasn't make such declaration..., yet...
    As we all know that the UNC24 already has...
    It'even on your “Timeline”...
    Chuckle..., chuckle...

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Swede

    More European countries have territories outside of Europe, which are NOT on the NSGT-list. French Guiana on the South American mainland, for instance, is considered part of France itself and is not much more “self governing” than departments like Calvados or Haute Marne in Europe. Also Denmark and The Netherlands have such overseas territories. What is really the difference? If the ”the aspirations and needs of the communities living in the territories” is paramount, the principle of self determination must be applied also to the F.I.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • mollymauk

    Yes, I never understood the lack of “solidarity” by Argentina for the “colonial situation” suffered by their South American brothers-in-arms in French Guiana...

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Brit Bob

    Think

    'populations concerned to exercise their right to self-determination'

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    Swede swede & Swede Brit Bob...
    Chagos..., as Malvinas are evidently two very “Special Cases” for the UN...
    If the UN decolonization were mainly to be guided by the aspirations and needs of the communities living in those two very special territories..., well then... them Chagos Islands should be 100% American..., huhhhh...?
    That is clearly NOT the case as the UN dictaminated exactly one year ago...
    We are still waiting for the UN veredict on the Islas Malvinas/Falkland..., though...

    Mr. Mollymauk..., you baaaad luck omen Albatross...
    Don't mention French Guiana..., Chay...!
    Haven't you been following what the Messiah(s) currently ruling Brasil is planning with them Frogs...?

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Brit Bob

    Think

    Take the matter up with the Secretary General

    “Decolonization is a process guided by the aspirations and needs of the communities living in the territories”

    and

    the ICJ

    'In the Court’s view, it follows that the legal regime of non-self-governing territories, as set out in Chapter XI of the Charter, was based on the progressive development of their institutions so to lead the populations concerned to exercise their right to self-determination.'

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Don Alberto

    Shrinkbrain is trolling and making things up, as usual.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    Well...

    If ~50 years of continuous Anglo-Yank military occupation of the Chagos Islands..., after the forced expulsion of its previous non-indigenous Creole population..., ***“DOES NOT”***..., according to the UN International Court..., give any legal rights whatsoever to them ~4,500 Anglo-Yank squatters..., (or to their Mother Country...) to keep those stolen territories...

    THEN...:

    - Why should ~187 years of continuous military Anglo-Kelper occupation of the Malvinas Islands..., after the forced expulsion of its previous non-indigenous Creole population..., GIVE ANY legal rights to them ~3,000 Anglo-Kelper squatters..., (or to their Mother Country...) to keep those stolen territories...?

    Huhhhhhhhhhhh...?

    (Don't worry if you find the above difficult to argument against... Many an Anglo friendly diplomat at the UN are having the very same problem... ;-)

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Brit Bob

    Think

    Bad day at the office eh.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....
    Look at the above two last contributions from them Anglo Turnips...
    I always wonder... Where do they get their lack of ideas...?
    Chuckle..., chuckle...

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Swede

    Turning a territory over to another country against the will of almost 100% of its people/population/“those living” or what ever they are called could not be called “decolonization”. What happened in Hong Kong was not really democratic, but perhaps the unavoidable, as a great party of Hong Kong was only leased from China. But it should not be repeated.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Think

    And the Swede above insists that the Chagos Islands must belong to the USA... because that is the will of almost the 100% of them 4,500 Yank people/population/“those living” or what ever they are called... illegally occupying them for more than fifty years...

    ABBA's “The Bully Takes It All”..., must surely be that Swede's favourite song... :-)
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
    The only 'Special Case' is your self, since you have not provided a source.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    Think believes a bunch of soldiers living and working temporarily on a military base are the same thing as an actual community of people who have lived together and supported themselves for generations. What a turnip.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    The difference, Thunk, is that Buenos Aires was trespassing in 1833 having failed to achieve effective control of the Spanish island and after being warned by Britain.

    Another difference, is that the Chagos were listed as part of a NSGT, Mauritius. The Falklands have never been listed as part of Argieland which has never been listed as a NSGT.

    The Chagos AO was about decolonization. Not recolonization.

    Feb 24th, 2020 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Islander1

    Think- What forced expulsion of people in 1833 are you referring to?
    The following were indeed expelled- the armed militia and their dependents who had only been in the Islands a few months.

    The civilian settlers(about 24 of them) who had been there- in some cases for up to about 4-5yrs - were all offered a free choice of their own choice:

    1- They were free to leave the Islands
    2- They were welcome to stay on and continue their normal lives so long as they accepted British rule and laws.

    2 couples opted for Option 1 - and Lewft.

    All the rest chose Option 2 - and stayed.

    The names of both groups are as you well know recorded in both the Argentine Naval Archives and the Archives of the Royal Navy.
    Indeed the last of that group- a lady of Argentine origen wgo thus became British of her own free choice- passed away and was buried here in Stanley cemetery in 1865.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Swede

    If the numbers are correct, which I think they are (records by both sides), it could not be called “a forced eviction”. And it happened almost 200 years ago,long before rules about that were written. If any international court should condemn it as such what would they say about the deportation of millions of Germans from eastern Europe just some 75 years ago? And the Russians in the Kaliningrad area could be called an “implanted population” with no right of self determination. Such a verdict would have consequences far away from the Falklands.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Brit Bob

    Think

    Probably your worst day at the office. Totally ridiculed.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    Mr. Miller...

    Tell me...

    IF we Argies were to..., lets say in 2023..., indeed expell the ~500 armed FIDF militiamen..., their dependents and their known close collaborators..., wouldn't you call it an “expulsion”...

    The vey few Kelpers..., Saints..., Shileans..., Uruguayans... etc. left would..., of course..., be offered a free choice of their own choice...:
    1- They would be free to leave the Islands
    2- They would be welcome to stay on and continue their normal lives so long as they accepted Argie rule and laws...

    Does the above sound right to you..., Tim...?
    Cause that's what you just told us them Engrish did in 1833...

    Capisce...?

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Don Alberto

    “They would be welcome to stay on and continue their normal lives so long as they accepted Argie rule and laws...”

    In plain English: They would be welcome to stay on and discontinue their normal lives so long as they accepted Argie bankruptcy, dictators whenever available, live in a failed pariah state, live with an inflación of 35-50 percent, etc.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Zaczac121

    Don’t forget that they’d also have to drive on the right side of the road, use a shit currency, be a spot for Migrants to land since the Argies will exploit the oil and bring people onto the island to man these oil plants, destroying local wildlife as well as replacing the population over time

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Isn't that what happened in 1982? The Argie army kicked out the marines and a few natives, and the rest were allowed to stay but had to live under Argentine rule.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • BrianFI

    The difference is that militia and their families had been in the islands for no more than 6 months before they were expelled in 1833. Those in the FIDF have roots here going back many generations. BIG difference.

    I THINK you need to find a better analogy

    Capisce...?

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Swede

    Yes. Many of the hard core malvinistas, such as Sr Filmus, are just first or second generation Argentines. And they call sixth or seven generation “Kelpers” an “implanted population”.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Such as Think, too. Maybe they feel they have something to prove?

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Swede

    They must perhaps prove their “argentinity” by promoting this “cult”.

    Feb 25th, 2020 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Buenos Aires was trespassing in 1833, Thunk.

    The Falklanders are there legitimately.

    That's the difference.

    Codpiece....?

    Feb 26th, 2020 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Guillote

    How many people lived on the islands in 1833?

    Feb 26th, 2020 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Settlers? Not sealers but including gauchos.

    January1832 to October 1832 = approx 30 after the Lexington raid
    October 1832 to January 1st, 1833 = approx 30 settlers inc. Gauchos + a garrison of 47 (I have not counted Pinedo or his crew)
    February 1833 = approx 26 after the garrison was ejected by Clio
    March 1833 = approx 32 with the arrival of Rapid
    August 1833 = approx 26 (1 dead, 5 unaccounted for)
    September 1833 = approx 21 (5 murdered)

    A little rough and ready, confused by the sealers and a few missing gauchos.

    Feb 26th, 2020 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Guillote

    Queda claro cuando empezo la colonia

    Feb 27th, 2020 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    Settlers with British permission?

    ““The United Kingdom is clear about both the historical and legal position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. No civilian population was expelled from the Falkland Islands on 3 January 1833. An Argentine military garrison had been sent to the Falkland Islands three months earlier in an attempt to impose Argentine sovereignty over British sovereign territory. The United Kingdom immediately protested and later expelled the Argentine military garrison on 3 January 1833. The civilian population, who had previously sought and received British permission to reside on the Islands, were encouraged to remain. The majority voluntarily chose to do so. In 1833, the territorial borders of the Republic of Argentina did not include the geographical southern half of its present form, nor any territory in the Falkland Islands, Antarctica, or South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.” [ UN Document A/66/677].

    Feb 27th, 2020 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hey Roger, insults don't speak well of you.
    There is no claim of Napoleon, they are fishing negotiations. In any case, the British position does not benefit at all.
    Davis did not discover the islands, nor benefits the British position.
    To this day he did not explain the fundamentals of British sovereignty.
    They did not discover the islands.
    They were not the first occupants.
    They usurped the islands and must reintegrate them into Argentine territory.
    You must stop misrepresenting the story.
    A cannon shot is not recognition of a state's sovereignty.
    Spain occupied the islands for more than 40 years exclusively.
    You did not claim a single island as read in the documents provided by you.
    The Treaty - Arana Southern did not imply waiver of sovereignty. It is absurd for the President of Uruguay to give his consent in the conflict over the islands.
    A historian with all the data seeks to approach the truth, not to lie as you do.

    Feb 28th, 2020 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Must reintegrate them into Argentine territory.” You're the one who is the claimant, thus you bear the burden of proof
    The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably its right of sovereignty, while legally barring any Argentine claim. There being no official protests to the UK by Argentina after 1888 until 1941. Over fifty years had passed, which is more than enough to cause Argentina to lose the right to even pursue a legal claim.
    Cling to your hopeless fantasies, Argentina has lost any chance of making any legal claim against the UK. The court would view her failure to bring suit as an admission that her claim has no merit. Even if she could overcome that hurdle, she would be stopped dead in her tracks by the admissions of her past president, and vice-president to congress that Argentina had no unresolved disputes with any country. Finally, the legal effect of the 1850 Convention would totally void all Argentine pretensions.

    Feb 28th, 2020 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    You bore me, MoreCrap. I have provided more than sufficient evidence to prove each of your points wrong. I never lie. Indeed, I am far more inclined to use the quotes of others to make my point which is why I have provided you with so many.

    I have provided quotes to show that Davis was believed to be the first European to sight the islands and Hawkins the first to claim them. I have led you to the documents to show Napoleon's demand in 1801 and the Spanish claim to just one island of 1811. Then given you quotes to support those interpretations. In Napoleon's case, by an Argentine. In Spain's case, by a leading Spanish scholar noted by Argentine lawyers.

    It is not so much that these people support my interpretation, but that I support theirs.

    I do not believe we had reached the 1850 treaty, but I have many quotes to support the contention that it settled the matter. Once again, I include quotes from Argentine historians and politicians. I include quotes from both sides.

    I have no need to lie. History speaks for itself.

    Go learn, idiot troll. You waste my time with your nonsense.

    https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

    Feb 29th, 2020 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Guillote

    Me causa mucha gracia como gorgory se autocita

    Mar 01st, 2020 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Guillote
    “Arana Southern did not imply waiver of sovereignty” It is an absolute waiver of an Argentine claim to the Islands.
    There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
    LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
    § 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.

    Mar 01st, 2020 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Stink & Culote,
    Your unfounded opinions are irrelevant.....but tell us, which Argy visited the islands prior to 1600, or 1700 ? all you two do, is contribute to global warming.

    DT (cont of IMF: Arg debt)
    Judges shouldn’t try to impress people with hard-to-understand jargon..last year, Barroso actually criticized some of his colleagues because of it. He, Fux & Fachin (‘n C.Lucia) explain their decisions in understandable language.

    “Since Portuguese is descended from Latin…”…I’d say so, but only for those who studied Latin.

    (judges appointed B4 Lula) :Celso de Mello, by Sarney, an unknown quantity – never know which way he’ll go ; Marco Aurelio, much the same, appointed by his cousin, Fernando Collor ; G.Mendes, by FHC, became irrational +/- when Dilma was re-elected.
    As strange as it sounds, 4 of the 5 appointed by Dilma seem to be serious, not influenced by party politics.

    Afaik, Queiroz is alive ‘n kicking – don’t know for how long yet, but I think he’ll go down for corruption, not murder.

    Maia, overall, did support the reform, but one could see that the support was never 100% for the right reasons…officially, always saying politically correct things, but his other actions – like now – reek of furthering his personal agenda. These guys aren’t stupid, they know Brazil needs the reforms, ‘n that Guedes’ plans are important, but they play difficult to negotiate advantages for themselves. Very selfless, “everything for the people”.

    Congress would need to catch B breaking the law, to try to impeach him…being just ‘unpopular’ - (but not to all, by a long shot) - is not enough...but if they did, they’d end up with a General.

    Flooding is common here during summer, but this year, in several States, rainfall was more than double the expected average.
    Cool in São Paulo is around 15°C. A breakthrough to the vaccine could happen at any time…but suppose they'll demand a test period, during which I’m sure there'll be no lack of guinea pigs (in China).

    Mar 02nd, 2020 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!